LexSHEONATH PRASAD & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHEONA TH PRASAD & ORS.
v.
ST A TE 01<" BIHAR
April 30, 1968
[S. \1. Sn:.RI AND R. s. BACllAWAT, JJ.]
Bi/1ar Sales Tax Acr 1947. s. 2(1) ands. 17-Power nf inspeclion,
search and sei~urr uuder s.
17-'Place of business',
definition a/-
Whether 011/y pre111is~s declared by tlzr deafer
to be place
of business
under Act and Rules ro be treated as such.
Cri1ninal Procedure ('ode, ss. 165(4) and 103-Exercise of po1vers
u11der s. 17 whe1!1er attracts provisions.
The first <i.ppcllant's prcmisco; were raided by the Superintendent of
Commcrci~1l l'axcs (Jnrclligcnce Branch) exercising the powers of Assistant
Superiruendent of Sales Tax.
He found a duplicate set of accounts being
prepared there ~ind took .:he variolLS account books into his possession.
·1ne appellant along with others came and snatched away the
bundle
containing the account books.
The Assisiant Sessions Judge as well as
the High Court found that the inspection. search and seizure had been
made by ·the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes in purported exercise
of his powers under s. 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. One of the
offences charged against the appe11ants \l.'as that of dacoity under s. 395
l.P.C.
While the Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the appcllanLs of
this offence the High Court convicted them and sentenced them to two
years' R.I. for it.
In appc;il to this Omrt it was contended : (i) that
the po""·er of ino;pection seizure and search under s. 17 can be exercised
only in a place of husiness declared by the dealer under the Act and the
Rules and as the place from ""'here the accounts hoJks ""·ere seized in
the prt."SCnt case was not a place so declared, the. inspection, search and
seizure were illegal; {ii) that the search was made by the Superiatendent
in the course of an investigation. of a co~nizable offence. and as there was
a contravention of s.165(4) read wilh s. 103 of the Criminal Procedure
Code the search and seizure ~·ere illegal: (iii) that the sentences should
be mitigated.
HELD : (i) The dealer kept accounts of sales a1 the place from where
they were recovered.
Therefore under the definition in s. 2( I) of the
Bihar Sales Tax Act 1~be said place was a place of busincs..c;, and could
he lawfully se~1rchcct hv the Superintendent under s. 17 read with s. 18
of the Act.
·The po\ver of instxction sc.1rch and seizure under s. 17 is
not limitctl to a place of hu~in~s declared by a dealer in his application
for registration or otherwise and i1 can he cxcrci~d in respect of any
and every place of hu~iness. 1154 D---Gl
(ii) 1n the present case the Supcrintcndcut '"·as only exercising pOWCZ'S
under "· 17 a1:1d was not inv~tigating or dealing \Vith any cognizable or
othec ofknco. The. provisions of s. 165(4) reod withs. 103 of the C~minal
Procedure Code were therefore nnt :Htracte<l and he wac; not required to
comply with those provisions. [155 B-Cl
CRIMINAi. APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Criminal Appc3l No.
189 of 1965.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
-
'
•
·.
•
•
SHEONATH PRASAD v. BlHAR ( Bachawat, ]. )
151
A
Appeal by special leave from the judgment ~nd order dated
September 22, 1965 of the Patna High Court m Government
Appeal No. 40 of 1962 with Cr. Revision No. 122 of 1963.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. S. R. Chari, Surendra Prasad and D. Gobardhun, for the
appellants.
R. K. Qarg for D. P. Singh, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J.-Nine persons were tried for various offences
by the 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Patna. The Judge acquitted
Rarnnath and Madan of all the charges.
He convicted
Sheo-
nath, Matukdeo and Sarjoo under sec. 353 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced theii1 to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each or in
default to suffer imprisonment for six months.
He convicted
Satnarayan, Billat, Gu!lat and Bishwanath under sec. 353 read
with sec. 149 and sentenced them 'to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each
or in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three months. He
convicted all of them under sec. J 4 7 but did not pass a separate
sentence under it. He acquitted all of them of the charge under
sec. 395.
The State of Bihar filed an
appeal and a
revision
petition for enhancement of the
sentence: The
High
Court
allowed the appeal and revision petition in part. It convict~d ·
Sheonath, Matukdeo and Sarjoo under sec. 395 and sentenced
them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each, en-
hanced the sentences already impoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.